Mask Mandates Are About Controlling the People, Not the Disease

It’s not about the science and the protection of life; it’s about power and the protection of the party.

Federal District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle offered America a glimpse of freedom when she struck down the Biden administration's latest extension of its mask mandate aboard public transportation exactly one week ago.

British columnist Gerard Baker described the relief Americans felt at that moment.

“America enjoyed an early Independence Day on Monday,” he wrote in The Times. “Passengers and crew on commercial aircraft across the country erupted in joyful celebration. Videos of flight attendants leading their charges in impromptu mid-flight song and dance routines went viral.”

In a separate column, this one in The Wall Street Journal, Baker strongly implied that mask mandates had little to do with public health.

"The politicians and bureaucrats who run almost all major cities, many states and the federal executive branch seem to care more about preserving the symbol of their authority that mask mandates represent than about the actual physical safety of citizens,” he wrote.

And indeed, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had only extended the mandate for 15 days through May 3, the Biden administration opted to appeal Judge Mizelle’s order.

Without providing any supporting data, the CDC claimed that their “order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health.”

But Andy Slavitt, who served as senior adviser to the COVID-19 Response Coordinator in the Biden administration, offered what was really behind the decision to appeal.

He began innocently enough: “NEWS: CDC recommends Justice Department repeal judge’s order eliminating mask mandate for air travel.”

But then Slavitt let the cat out of the bag.

He continued, “Appeal should be successful, but if not the consequences could be significant, potentially preventing later public health measures.”

And with midterm elections looking more disastrous for Democrats, the possibility that “later public health measures” may be “necessary” is more likely — such as recommending that states implement universal mail-in voting — which led to Biden’s 2020 victory.

But what does an election have to do with health mandates? Public health mandates are based on science; elections are about politics.

But there’s precedent; the CDC acted similarly before.

Last year documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act revealed that the CDC routinely consulted with the White House and even the American Federation of Teachers prior to issuing health orders and recommendations.

And once the administration was caught, they didn’t deny it. White House press secretary Jen Psaki claimed it was both a proper and necessary part of the CDC’s decision-making process.

"It’s actually longstanding best practice for the CDC to engage with organizations, groups that are going to be impacted by guidance and recommendations issued by the agency," Psaki said. "It doesn't mean they are taking everything they want, or even a percentage of what they want."

Last year the issue was teachers who didn’t want to return to the classroom. This year the stakes have been substantially eased.

At issue now is the survival of the Democratic Party that wants to retain power at all costs despite a brand that’s been damaged by escalating crime, runaway inflation, a failed foreign policy and an invasion of our southern border, to mention but a few.

It’s been said that desperate times call for desperate measures, and at this point Democrats are desperate. Even the White House knows they can’t turn to a weak, corrupt machine politician like Biden to prop them up.

No matter how you slice it, it’s going to be an interesting six months until November 8. Which will be the victor: liberty or tyranny? In large part the federal court system may be the ultimate decider.